Jimmy Lai Is a Martyr for Freedom

https://reason.com/2025/12/19/jimmy-lai-is-a-martyr-for-freedom/

by mooreds • 7 months ago

386 231 7 months ago

reason.com

fibers2• 7 months ago

Headline seems overstated.

pavlov• 7 months ago

From the article:

“He may be sentenced to die in prison in connection with his efforts promoting liberty in China.”

Martyr doesn’t sound like overstatement if that happens.

idiotsecant• 7 months ago

This man will spend the rest of his (possibly short?) life in prison for the crime of publishing ideas that the government didn't like. He chose to stay in hong kong defending the principles that mattered to him instead of abandoning his principles and fleeing to the UK, which was on option entirely open to him.

Explain why you think it's overstated.

bmelton• 7 months ago

It seems accurate and unsensational here

I think perhaps we've lionized the term martyr to mean too many things, but his actions seem in line with the dictionary definition

ch4s32• 7 months ago

Jimmy Lai is more courageous and principled than anyone you've probably ever met in your life. He'll die in prison for his belief that speech should be free in Hong Kong.

fibers2• 7 months ago

Appeals to emotions won't get you anywhere. What else is next, "We NEED to reelect Trump to restore Christendom in the West!!!"?

_tik_3• 7 months ago

I will not called Jimmy Lai as principled based on how he run his news outlet. You can just simply check on wikipedia his reputationa and his news outlet reputation. This is one from Jimmy Lai https://hongkongfp.com/2020/11/02/explainer-apple-dailys-jim...

lenerdenator3• 7 months ago

If there was one critical miscalculation the West (particularly the US) made in the last 40 years, it was thinking that investment in China would equal liberalization and democratic reforms. There was a mistaking of capitalism for human rights. While it is a human right to own property and use it to rationally pursue one's self-interests, that does not mean that capitalism in its current form is conducive to that for the greatest number of people, or to the evolution of other human rights in the societies in which capitalism is practiced.

If investment was the key to liberalization, we would have seen far greater investment behind the then-fallen Iron Curtain, where countries had actively turned their backs on command economies. The cynic in me thinks that capital didn't like just how that had turned out. If a country's people could either violently (Romania) or peacefully (almost everywhere else) remove such totalitarian systems of politics and economics, they could also reject methods of accumulating capital that might run afoul of their values.

China, on the other hand, had not moved away from command economics at the time. Instead, the result was state capitalism. People were free to try new things that could create economic expansion, but only in a way that served the needs of the state. Anything else would be handled with the same totalitarian methods that political dissidents and class enemies were once handled with under Mao. While this has ebbed and flowed over the years, it essentially remains the system in place.

Lai is a victim of this miscalculation.

alephnerd4• 7 months ago

it was thinking that investment in China would equal liberalization and democratic reforms...

That's a rewriting of history and a common misconception I've seen repeated ad nauseam both on HN and (what I assume is it's origin) Reddit.

The West (primarily the US and then-West Germany) began investing in China in the 1970s to 1989 explicitly as a bulwark against the USSR [0] due to the Sino-Soviet Split. The "economic democratization" argument was a 1990s-era framing to reduce opposition to the PRC joining GATT/WTO [1] along with to reduce the sanctions enforced following the Tienanmen Square massacre [2].

George HW Bush as well as Clinton's NSC Asia Director Kenneth Lieberthal were both massive Chinaphiles, and played a major role in cementing the position China is in today.

[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46264332

[1] https://www.nytimes.com/1994/12/20/opinion/IHT-america-needs...

[2] https://www.nytimes.com/1993/07/14/opinion/forget-the-tianan...

lenerdenator3• 7 months ago

I think that it's both a rewriting of history and a rationalization of the investment on some people's parts.

Nixon's opening of relations with China was definitely a move against the USSR, but that was nothing compared to the extent of investment that was seen after the fall of Communism in Europe. The fact that the CPC was still very much in charge while all of this investing was occurring had to be rationalized somehow in the minds of people who were less cynical, and "it'll help liberalization" was probably one of the rationalizations used. And in some ways, you can use investment as a way to leverage social changes within countries, and some people (though apparently not enough) thought that was the intention with China, but there was only a carrot, not a stick, and by the time there was a desire to use a stick, there was too much dependency on China as a market and producer for the West. That's where we're at now.

earlyreturns2• 7 months ago

Interesting point and pardon my naïveté but I’m curious, by “the west began investing” do you mean public sector investments? Or are you including people like jim rodgers long time China bull? I think private sector investment wouldn’t be done for anything other than profit. It seems like trade liberalism is an ideological thing that people seem to believe in above and beyond geopolitical concerns. Those who believe in trade liberalization (globalization) are sort of religious in their belief that it leads to liberalism in all spheres, not just the economic. I’m thinking of classic liberals, economists, Ayn Rand fanboys, etc.

JumpCrisscross12• 7 months ago

That's a rewriting of history

You both agree.

“The ‘economic democratization’ argument was a 1990s-era framing to reduce opposition to the PRC joining GATT/WTO” is what they’re talking about. American security analysts believed that making China richer would make it more like us.

Prior to that it was principally geostrategic. But prior to that, the argument was never made.

shevy-java2• 7 months ago

Lai is a victim of this miscalculation.

I don't think it was a miscalculation. Greed always ran deep in the West too.

If a country's people could either violently (Romania) or peacefully (almost everywhere else) remove such totalitarian systems of politics

It's not always possible. It works in some countries but not in others. For instance, it seems not possible in Russia.

China, on the other hand, had not moved away from command economics at the time. Instead, the result was state capitalism. People were free to try new things that could create economic expansion, but only in a way that served the needs of the state.

I somewhat agree, as the sinomarxist theorem and strategem is about that (and the sinomarxists also managed to bring out many people out of poverty too), but your analysis is not entirely correct either as China has many superrich now, which is a perversion in the system. So Xi also lies here. Because how can there be so many super-superrich? This is a master-slave situation, just like in other capitalistic countries. So why then the lie about sinomarxism? They just sell it like an ideology now, not unlike the Juche crap in North Korea.

nine_k4• 7 months ago

seems not possible in Russia.

But Russia has never removed the Communists from power. It removed the Communist party, that's true. But plenty of the revolutionaries were themselves Communists; both Gorbachev and Yeltsin were very high-ranking Communists. They liked the idea of economic liberalization, but the political liberalization was only allowed as long as they stayed in power. I'm not sure Russia has seen even a single honest presidential election. The current "president" of Russia is a former KGB officer.

thenthenthen• 7 months ago

Miscalculation on what level? I think you are right concerning the methods as during the “last-stand” at hk poly technic, tanks were assembling in Futian Shenzhen (sat images.. what was this site again)

lenerdenator3• 7 months ago

I think that laypeople in the US were willing to see more investments in China with the rationalization that it could lead to more human rights. If you had polled random Americans in 1995 with a question like, "Should the US government and American companies invest in the People's Republic of China in an effort to increase human rights and liberalization there?", most people would have responded "yes".

The miscalculation comes from thinking that the investment would actually have that effect. And I do think some people at the top knew it wouldn't have that effect, but of course, there was cheap labor to be had, and that was what they wanted more than anything else.

slibhb• 7 months ago

So far you're right but the tide can always turn. China has massively overbuilt housing supply, which is the kind of mistake that a freer economy couldn't make. China's failed birth policies (1 child until 2015!) are another example.

My opinion is still that capitalism (Western style) will win. Not because markets are never wrong but because the scope for fucking up is so much less. Markets can't decide "families can have only one child" or "we need to build 90 million units of housing" (that now sits empty). An accumulation of fuck-ups in this vein is inevitable when you have a small group of people making these kinds of decisions. In the long run, it will be fatal.

cogman109• 7 months ago

Markets can't decide "families can have only one child"

Actually they can. It's part of the reason why a lot of capitalist nations are seeing major problems with population stagnation and possibly shrinkage.

The problem is markets don't care at all about society. If they can require that every member of a household has to work and extract all their money as efficiently as possible, then they leave little room for society to have families.

Capitalism is geared towards minimizing workers' free time. And, unfortunately, free time is how babies get made and kids get raised.

That is where western capitalism is failing. Shouting louder and young adults to pull on bootstraps harder isn't making them have kids in their studio apartments.

South Korea and Japan are 2 examples of this train-wreck that's coming for the US and other nations.

maxglute11• 7 months ago

They prebuild 10 years of housing runway but still have another 10 years, aka 100m+ housing shortage for urbanization goals. They realize they got overzealous and was venturing in bubble and and intervened during boom vs after collapse. AKA preplanning and prematurely fixing something, which is the kind of intervention a freer economy can't do.

Family planning was also massive successful in preventing frankly 100s of millions of useless mouths from being born and concentrating resources to upskill 1-2 kids, hence their massive catchup within a few generations. Now they make more technical talent than OCED combined and will have the greatest high skill demographic dividend to milk for at least our life times, giving them 40+ years to sort out better family planning.

BTW US overspending 5-10% of GDP aka 2.5 Trillion per year on healthcare vs OECD baseline is basically more wasteful misallocation than anything PRC has ever done, including RE misallocation (3-5% waste). And at least they still have housing units left to use (being converted into affordable housing), instead of piles of paper work and personal debt. Accumulation of fuckups that are not resolvable in western style capitalism, it will be fatal medium term.

HDThoreaun3• 7 months ago

China is still moving millions of people from rural to urban areas every year. The overbuilt housing is a complete non issue that will naturally solve itself in under a decade. Meanwhile in the west there is a massive housing affordability crisis because the government lets special interests make new housing illegal. I am not a fan of the chinese government but their housing policy is one spot where they are obviously better than western policy.

zelphirkalt• 7 months ago

It depends though, whom you are asking about failed or successful policies. For example I have seen a normal flat of a friend in China in a capitol of a province, who lives alone in this 4 room apartment. I asked how much rent they had to pay and then asked them what they think, how much they would have to pay for that in Berlin. When I told them they would probably have to pay some 2k EUR rent, they thought for a moment, then just said: "That's insane!". The rent they paid was maybe 1/8 to 1/6 of that. And that apartment was not somewhere far out. It is well within the city and has good public transport connection. People can afford to rent. People can move. Single people. Over here not so much. This is also a result of the state having built houses and apartments.

jen20• 7 months ago

Markets can't decide "families can have only one child"

Sure they can. Just make it unaffordable to do anything else.

kmeisthax• 7 months ago

Yes. Unfortunately, we don't live in capitalism anymore, we live in feudalism. The feudal lords just so happen to wear the skin of formerly capitalist corporations. That's how we get the opposite but identical kind of failure, where basically any desirable city gets almost no housing buildout (because any idiot with a billion dollars can make it arbitrarily expensive to do) and families can't afford to even have one child.

cogman109• 7 months ago

While it is a human right to own property and use it to rationally pursue one's self-interests, that does not mean that capitalism in its current form is conducive to that for the greatest number of people, or to the evolution of other human rights in the societies in which capitalism is practiced.

I'd argue that communism is the only system of government that guarantees property for all. That's somewhat a core tenant that every member in a communist society collectively owns everything.

Capitalism is optimized to reduce or eliminate property access. For example, a free market capitalist has no problems with a very rich individual buying a city and perpetually renting the property to it's employees at rates above their salary, putting them in perpetual debt to that individual. They own nothing and can't escape their circumstances. Nor can their children.

Capitalism with minimal or no regulation naturally devolves into feudalism.

psunavy03• 7 months ago

Communism as such has never existed and will never exist because it ignores human nature. Private property rights are a fundamental tenet of human psychology.

But hey, in defiance of 100+ years of failed attempts, if you want to see Politburos putting people in gulags again for being counterrevolutionaries . . . sure, give it another go.

Capitalism is the worst economic system that has ever been tried . . . except for all the others.

JumpCrisscross12• 7 months ago

a core tenant that every member in a communist society collectively owns everything

Everyone owns the world oceans (“common heritage of humanity”). How is that going for its fisheries and sea bottoms.

mopsi5• 7 months ago

  > I'd argue that communism is the only system of government that guarantees property for all. That's somewhat a core tenant that every member in a communist society collectively owns everything.

This year, I knit a scarf for a friend as a Christmas gift. He already owns several scarves, unlike some other people who own none, but might need one more than he does. How is that collective ownership supposed to work here? Are you going to take that scarf away from me and "assign" it to someone you deem more deserving? I'll resist and you'll have to take it from me by force. And if you do, I'll stop knitting altogether, because why bother if I never get the chance to gift it to my friend. What are you going to do when you need the next scarf, force me to work?

If the answer is "yes", you've just reinvented a communist dictatorship. If it's a "no", then such society will run out of food and goods, and something better will rise to replace it.

tankenmate2• 7 months ago

"Lai is a victim of this miscalculation."; I don't think Lai miscalculated, he knew what was coming and fought it anyway.

"Authority comes from submission"; sure someone can threaten you with physical coercion, but they can't make you want to submit. I would strongly suspect that Jimmy knew what was coming, but the point isn't "winning" in the "hollywood" sense, but rather that he did the right thing even. I would suspect not even in spite of the cost, but because of the cost.

Are principles that don't cost you anything even principles?

_tik_3• 7 months ago

It’s hard to see Jimmy Lai purely as a victim. Much of his “martyr” narrative appears to be constructed by Western media as part of an ideological battle. From what I remember in Hong Kong, Jimmy Lai had a rather shady reputation. His media outlet was widely known for publishing paid-for stories, spreading misinformation, harassing news sources, and sensationalising sex scandals.

His original intent in setting up the news outlet was often said to be market manipulation for personal gain rather than journalism. He was also known for publishing xenophobic content targeting mainland Chinese. One of the most controversial examples was running ads that portrayed mainland tourists as “locusts” and called for them to be driven out of Hong Kong.

In addition, he donated money to prominent US neoconservatives. I’m not sure whether Western media are unaware of his earlier background in Hong Kong, or if they are deliberately choosing to whitewash his reputation.

BurningFrog• 7 months ago

China hasn't become a Western capitalist democracy, but it has changed enormously for the better from the genocidal tyranny of the Mao era, and my guess is that it will keep changing.

One "first principles" way to think about it is that money is power, and as the Chinese middle class grows bigger and richer, it will have more and more of the power. I expect it will want similar things as the middle class in other countries.

This may take any number of decades, which unfortunately makes this a hard theory to falsify.

cyberax2• 7 months ago

it was thinking that investment in China would equal liberalization and democratic reforms

China now _is_ far more liberal than in the 80-s. But it's also not even close to the Western democracies.

China, on the other hand, had not moved away from command economics at the time. Instead, the result was state capitalism.

Not really. "State capitalism" really is misleading. China is fiercely capitalistic, far more than any modern Western country. The ruling party has an unspoken agreement with the population: you stay out of politics, and they stay out of your business.

But I don't think this is sustainable. Russia had a similar social compact, and it had been broken after the Ukrainian invasion. There was too much power concentrated in one person, and it just never works.

disgruntledphd22• 7 months ago

Not really. "State capitalism" really is misleading. China is fiercely capitalistic, far more than any modern Western country. The ruling party has an unspoken agreement with the population: you stay out of politics, and they stay out of your business.

I mean sure, unless you happen to be Jack Ma and are about to IPO your financial institution.

malvim• 7 months ago

Did big businesses in the West really think “investing” in China would lead to “freedom” and such? Isn’t that framing a bit naive?

They went to China because it was cheaper. They went there in detriment of their countrymen that went without jobs, in detriment of the environment (what with all the shipping boom that followed), even in detriment of their own countries, since this would stifle development and industrialization. And they KNEW that technology transfer would follow, because China had made it clear.

No one forced them to do it. They did it knowingly in the name of short and medium-term profit. I’m not even judging if that is bad (I do THINK it’s bad overall, but I’m not arguing it here). I’m just pointing out what happened.

So now the West must not be surprised. And they aren’t! They just need to craft narratives that will paint them in good light.

drdec• 7 months ago

Did big businesses in the West really think “investing” in China would lead to “freedom” and such? Isn’t that framing a bit naive?

I think the OP would frame this as the Western governments allowing Western businesses to invest in China.

jrmg• 7 months ago

Did big businesses in the West really think “investing” in China would lead to “freedom” and such?

You’re right in your assumption that profit-seeking was the major part of it - like, it wouldn’t have happened otherwise.

But the idea that the West trading and interacting with China would mean the populous (and perhaps government) would come to understand the benefits of a free society, and so China would trend towards a Western political system - probably gradually rather than violently - was a mainstream view from the 80s to the early 2010s.

derektank• 7 months ago

Perhaps it would be more accurate to say that US policymakers deregulated capital flows with China in the hopes that it would lead to political liberalization. Businesses always just follow the money, but for a long time American policy makers had made it difficult to invest in China, from regulatory uncertainty to restrictions on dual use technology exports to high tariffs.

It really was an intentional decision, largely on the part of the Clinton administration, to make investing in the country easier and improve the economic well being of Chinese citizens in the hopes it would inevitably lead to democratization. Clearly, those hopes were just that though

dnautics• 7 months ago

Did big businesses in the West really think “investing” in China would lead to “freedom” and such? Isn’t that framing a bit naive?

It worked in south korea and taiwan which were severe military dictatorships before (maybe you could throw japan im there too?) so the history of capitalism liberalizing countries isn't all failures

varenc2• 7 months ago

Did big businesses in the West really think “investing” in China would lead to “freedom” and such? Isn’t that framing a bit naive?

Yes I think. At least a lot of Western policymakers did buy a "change through trade/investment" story, and it wasn't pulled from nowhere because it had worked in the past.

In postwar Japan and later South Korea, integration into the West's economic system coincided with eventual democratization, closer alignment of values, and alliance.

It was reasonable to think the same thing would work in China, but that doesn't seem to be the case.

Also the US intentionally set China up for investment by doing things like bringing them into the WTO. All that investment wouldn't have happened without some level of government support.

phendrenad2• 7 months ago

In our current system, which is, without a doubt, a corpocracy, it's easy to forget that before the 1970s, corporations didn't have that much power at all, and they were regularly overruled by other organizations - labor unions, government social welfare programs, religious institutions, grassroots movements, etc. Allowing corporations to maintain access to the US market while outsourcing jobs to countries with slave labor is the exploit/loophole that allowed corporations to amass wealth and MADE corporations as powerful as they are today.

underlipton• 7 months ago

Did big businesses in the West really think “investing” in China would lead to “freedom” and such?

BDS is a thing. It toppled South Africa's regime and makes Israelis gnash their teeth. Part of the "sell" for investing in China, and buying Chinese products, was that we were bringing them Capitalism, which would bring them wealth and freedom. The alternative is that you're fueling a Communist regime that is going to become your rival and adversary. Maybe I'm mixing up which was explicit and which was implicit, but there's no way Americans would have been on board with everything if the latter was seen as a real possibility. So either big business knew and suppressed it, or they genuinely themselves believed that they could do business in China and not support strengthening the CCP. (And, before Xi rose to power, that was not an completely unreasonable thought.)

graemep2• 7 months ago

Did big businesses in the West really think “investing” in China would lead to “freedom” and such? Isn’t that framing a bit naive?

Not the businesses. Governments and their advisors that encouraged it thought that. Francis Fukuyama's "end of history" bullshit was widely believed, and even now retains some influence.

jandrese• 7 months ago

The weird thing is China is absolutely jam packed with small companies. Go to a trade show and you'll find dozens of companies selling basically the same products with minor variations. It's absolutely cutthroat.

In the US we tend to see small companies get gobbled up by huge incumbents regularly, but in China the situation is much more in flux and it's not always obvious who the winners are going to be. It's the opposite of what you would expect from a command economy, at least in the tech and consumer product sectors.

overfeed• 7 months ago

It's absolutely cutthroat.

Meanwhile in the land of the free, it's consolidation galore with very little competition.

refurb4• 7 months ago

I think your perspective is biasing you.

The US has a massive number of small and medium companies. For example small part machining there are dozens per city.

43% of US GDP is small and medium size business. That’s effectively 50% of China’s entire GDP.

Sure China has more, but it also has 4x the population and an economy more focused on labor intensive industry.

HDThoreaun3• 7 months ago

China isnt a command economy, its state capitalism.

dyauspitr• 7 months ago

The West failed in its goals but the flip side is they unintentionally made it possible to pull 750 million people out of poverty. Probably the greatest western foreign policy victory ever.

lvl155• 7 months ago

I think it started out that way before Xi. But they soon realized they can actually overtake the US if they play it right. At least until the Chinese demand higher wages relative to the world, it’s going to be nearly impossible to compete against China in manufacturing. Likely at least another 15-20 years.

class3shock• 7 months ago

I don't think it was a miscalculation, it was big business interests winning over geopolitical considerations. Of course, with some added hubris when it came to opinions on the ability of third world countries to develop into competitors and willful ignorance of the direction things were going over the years. But I do think it was all quite calculated, specifically to make the line go up for the shareholders.

testrun2• 7 months ago

Nixon went to China because he thought he could use the PRC as a wedge against the USSR. Then China opened up in 1979 and a lot of people believed it will be a new market for goods. It was until it wasn't.

shevy-java2• 7 months ago

The sinomarxist mono-party is kind of doing their powerplay here.

The interesting thing is that the "two systems, one state" claim was revealed to have been a lie. I can kind of understand the position of China too, mind you - after all there was a war against the UK empire and they forced ceding territory (e. g. Hong Kong). But that still does not nullify the local's people preferences, and Beijing simply bulldozered through by force here. That's the total antithesis to freedom. Xi will focus on Taiwan next - that is also clear. It is in the "DNA" of the sinomarxistic philosophy (though one can wonder how much marxism with chinese focus is still left; it's kind of capitalistic led by a dictatorship. Oddly enough the USA is also transitioning to this by the tech-bros oligarchs.)

We kind of see that freedoms are being eroded. I don't know if that was always the case, or whether it just happens now more rapidly so; or is reported more often, but in the late 1990s I would say we had more freedoms, globally, than right now. Somehow the trend is going towards less freedom. Putin invading Ukraine, occupying land and killing people there is also highly similar to the pretext of the second world war, with the invasion of the Sudetenland by Germany, and then the Gleiwitz lie to sell the invasion of Poland. I think the only real difference here is that more countries have nukes. And smaller countries are kind of put in a dilemma now, since they can not offset bigger countries without nukes.

Barrin92• 7 months ago

But that still does not nullify the local's people preferences,

One reason why Lai's fate has only limited impact is because it doesn't resonate that strongly with working people for whom Hong Kong isn't an example of upward prosperity. His rags to riches 'boomer optimism' appeals more to the Western audience than to someone who has lived in the stagnation of Hong Kong of the last few decades, where ambitious tech talent now migrates to the mainland.

Likewise on the mainland the youth is significantly less interested in emulating the West or old Hong Kong which to them is not a symbol of dynamism.

maxglute11• 7 months ago

1Country2Systems is still in place, just the version that was always meant to be, not the lie western propaganda sold.

HK failed their half of 2System by not implementing national security law on their accord after 20 years of failures and it became obvious they were never going to do it out of own volition. Frankly if local preferences is to be under national security umbrella and be free to commit treason their preferences should be completely nullified because that's unserious position. Hence PRC, after UNREASONABLE patience had shove it down their throats under 1C mandate (1C supercedes 2S) - HK only ever had "high" degree of autonomy, not full autonomy. It was always in Beijing's prerogative to force HK to eat their vegetables, it just took 20 years of HK incompetence before Beijing ran of patience. AKA the 1C2S muh HK has full autonomy under Sino British declaration tier of retarded western propaganda fed to useful idiots was a lie and got dispelled.

Refreeze5224• 7 months ago

That's a whole lots of words to say that the people of HK don't get any say in how their lives are run, and that it's justified to force them into a situation they don't want. That's a crock of shit, and I suspect you know it.

corimaith3• 7 months ago

There is no or ever has been a national security issue in one of the safest cities in the world. You could leave it in the doldrums for 50 more years and it wouldn't make a difference.

On the other hand, has John Lee made any real progress regarding the entwinement of the political economy and real estate developers leading to the high housing prices or overcompetition? Not really. So it's just full throated authoritarianism with no benefit. Unlike the West, HK already enjoys efficiency and infrastructure on par if not superior to Tier 1 Chinese Cities, so any appeals to "order" are farcical when the city is already far more orderly than the mainland.

maxglute11• 7 months ago

dead comment from @wibby:

(1) man I hate this type of pol-speak (2) you're either incompetent or disingenuous if you think national security law is anything but a euphemism for 'we can throw you in jail if you criticize us'. People want free speech, they don't give a shit about trying to sell J-20 schematics worth $5. I guess you fall for think-of-the-kids laws too. They're not retarded, they actually have to live in the country you shitpost about and would rather have 20 years of freedom and have it forcefully taken from them than roll over. Good for them, might as well show the world what thuggery they're dealing with.

Does matter what NSL is lol, it matters if it exist or not, and in HK it did not so all other muh liberty considerations, is frankly immaterial. Retarded kids who don't care about selling J20 schematics is you know... the kind of retarded kids whose desire for free speech should be mercilessly curtailed. If retarded kids weren't retarded and gave a shit about J20 schematics, they wouldn't have got righteously slapped so hard. I don't know how you conflate literally naive fuck-the-kids endorsement with think-of-the-kids. The kids want immunity from treason. So yes, fuck those kind of kids. The same kids who are partying in Shenzhen now btw, good for them, might as well as show the world that thug tier1 city still preferable to end stage capitalist shithole of HK. TFW removing the retarded libtard virus from their brains and suddenly the kids are alright.

10xDev5• 7 months ago

The dissident was convicted in Hong Kong earlier this week of two counts of conspiring to collude with foreign forces
he also met with then–Vice President Mike Pence and Secretary of State Mike Pompeo; at trial, Lai testified that he had asked them to voice their support for Hong Kong.

Yeah, I don't think that's going to help convince anyone buddy.

10xDev5• 7 months ago

Imagine if Jensen Huang started meeting Xi Jinping.

axus• 7 months ago

Nothing would happen to Mr. Huang, he's free to talk to anyone.

budududuroiu• 7 months ago

He wouldn't be meeting Xi, as it's not a state visit, but he did meet the Vice Premier, He Lifeng. Elon also met Li Qiang.

shimman• 7 months ago

No need, he has already convinced Trump to sell chips to China unabated. Why meet at this point?

D_Alex2• 7 months ago

Imagine if Jensen Huang started meeting Xi Jinping to seek help for carrying out political change in the US.

What then?

anon291• 7 months ago

Never give up speech.

QGQBGdeZREunxLe2• 7 months ago

Britain had the chance to liberalize Hong Kong before the handover negotiations even began. You can thank Murray MacLehose for the mess they're in now.

https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/lseih/2025/06/13/the-empires-last-ab...

JumpCrisscross12• 7 months ago

Britain had the chance to liberalize Hong Kong before the handover

How would it have made a difference when the Chinese military invaded?

nine_k4• 7 months ago

UK offered a rather simple pathway to immigrating to the UK for most Hong Kong residents [1]. But the choice between the stagnant UK and the booming mainland China was not obvious for everyone in late the 1990s, when China seemed to be democratizing more and more (despite the Tiananmen massacre), and growing richer by the day.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_National_(Overseas)

z2• 7 months ago

It was a far cry from the full Portuguese citizenship offered for Macau, both in the latter's lack of conditions on acquisition (beyond being over age 15 at the handover), and in passing it on to descendants.

https://www.quora.com/Why-did-Portugal-give-full-citizenship...

btilly5• 7 months ago

They had multiple pathways. The top three destinations were Canada, the USA, and Australia. These locations offered a major benefit over the UK - they were on trade routes along which people from Hong Kong were already doing business.

Canada was particularly affected. It absorbed the most immigrants, they were a larger share of the population, and this was a major increase in ethnic diversity. The resulting cultural clashes were sometimes an issue. Here is one that literally doubled car insurance rates in British Columbia around the time I left.

Three cars, 2 in front with the left-hand car being driven by a Canadian, and the back car driven by a recent immigrant. The immigrant sees the opportunity to pass, swings out into oncoming traffic, and guns it. Leaving just a few inches of room. Normal Hong Kong driving.

The Canadian has no idea that this is happening until OMG I'M ABOUT TO BE HIT! The Canadian then swerves right to avoid the emergency, and hits the car on the right.

The immigrant drives off. Presumably wondering about these crazy Canadians who don't know how to drive.

Everyone involved behaved reasonably for how they were used to driving. But the combination worked out very poorly...

cherryteastain• 7 months ago

BN(O) is/was not a simple pathway to UK residence. As the wikipedia article says

BN(O)s are British nationals and Commonwealth citizens, but not British citizens. They are subject to immigration controls when entering the United Kingdom and do not have automatic right of abode there

Things were different before the 1981 British Nationality Act but it's not too relevant for HK as the 1981 act is before the Sino British Declaration.

maxglute11• 7 months ago

TBH UK never had the chance because PRC saw through their games. TLDR UK wanted to maintain influence post handover for their investments, but like most other colonies on the fading empire they had no leverage, i.e. negotiate to turn HK into self administered territory (like Singapore)... along with UN decolonization rules meant engineering pathway for HK independence. PRC keked and said fuck off and promptly removed HK from UN list of non-self governing territories. There's a reason UK/Patton had to jam in HK liberalisation efforts last minute to increase UK influence post handover and not before... because if they did it before, i.e. pre 90s there would be so much anti colonial and pro CCP sympathies that political freedom in HK could be contrary to British interests. HK was just another Suez, symptom of UK weakness, not any one man.

cm2187• 7 months ago

I know that attributing to western countries the responsability for any bad thing happening in this world is a common reflex, but we are 30 years after the handover, 40 years after the negotiation, so surely China bears some if not pretty much all the responsibility here.

And it's not like the UK had much of a choice in the first place. China threatened to invade and there is very little the UK could have done to prevent a full control.

Worth also remembering that "one country, two systems" came with an expiration date that is rapidly approaching anyway.

p_j_w• 7 months ago

I know that attributing to western countries the responsability for any bad thing happening in this world is a common reflex

You can’t gloat that the sun never sets on your empire and then absolve yourself from responsibility for events that you had a heavy hand in influencing. Regardless, if you think the article is wrong, your point would he better served by providing examples of where it’s wrong and stating why.

woooooo3• 7 months ago

The Chinese absolutely bear responsibility for how they've governed the last 30 years, just as the British bear responsibility for how they governed the prior 150.

The fact that British HK liberalized a little at the very last second before handover is better than nothing, and the National Security Law is definitely bad, but right now the scoreboard is 7/150 years of free speech under the UK, compared to 23/28 years of free speech under PRC. It'll take another 100 years for the PRC to have a worse record than the UK.

maxglute11• 7 months ago

Or surely PRC should get all the praise for diffusing geopolitical traps UK like to leave whenever they lose a colony. Patton threw a curve ball right before handover to last minute liberalize HK a little to hold onto influence, something they didn't do under UK rule. Of course it was geopolitical trap to make PRC look bad if they ever decide take away from HK what UK never provided, but PRC managed to do it anyway and most of world, i.e. global south got example that it is possible to excise legacy colonial tumors from declining empires who choose not to pass gracefully.

QGQBGdeZREunxLe2• 7 months ago

I know that attributing to western countries the responsability [sic] for any bad thing happening in this world is a common reflex

I don't think I'm being superficial here. There are a few distinct events during the 20th century which can be attributed to the British. The handover of Hong Kong, Suez Crisis and the Balfour Declaration stand out the most.

And it's not like the UK had much of a choice in the first place. China threatened to invade and there is very little the UK could have done to prevent a full control.

The leased territories are Chinese territory. Full stop. Hong Kong island and the ceded land could not survive alone. All of the water processing happens in the New Territories. It would have been impossible to either break up HK or defend it.

https://i.redd.it/zghghoib1k1a1.png

China has not rolled back any reforms that happened before negotiations began [0]. They did rollback the last-ditch efforts of Chris Patten [1] because at that point it was seen a malicious attempt to undermine the handover.

The mechanisms for China to take control were largely left in place by the British so they bare some responsibility, but it is the PRC asserting this control and there's an argument to be made that most of HK supports the PRC and it's their right to do what they wish with their own territory.

Worth also remembering that "one country, two systems" came with an expiration date that is rapidly approaching anyway.

It'll be interesting to see what is kept. China's experimenting already in Hainan. They could structure Hong Kong in a similar fashion.

[0] The PRC did introduce PR with the idea that it would reduce the risk of majorities forming but the system is arguably more democratic than FPTP.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1994_Hong_Kong_electoral_refor...

lbrito2• 7 months ago

Doesn't martyrdom imply, um, death?

I don't care about the specific politics, and I don't know his biography. You can love this man and hate China with the power of every cell in your body. But calling anyone a martyr, even with poetic license, has very specific connotations which don't seem to apply here.

Snild• 7 months ago

Not necessarily:

https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/martyr

a person who suffers very much or is killed because of their religious or political beliefs, and is often admired because of it

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/martyr

2: a person who sacrifices something of great value and especially life itself for the sake of principle

everdrive• 7 months ago

Would you be you happier with "soon-to-be-martyr" or "martyr-in-the-making" ?

lbrito2• 7 months ago

Snarkiness is not appreciated here. Well, at least officially.

No, that wouldn't make me happy. A world without suffering and oppression would make me happy, but failing that, lets at least try to use words appropriately.

GuinansEyebrows• 7 months ago

a capitalist is a martyr for capitalism when they knowingly break laws in the country they live in? i'm no fan of authoritarianism but come on. this article is such typical Reason dreck.

zdragnar2• 7 months ago

He's not being imprisoned for being a capitalist, engaging in capitalism, or anything of the like. This is a pretty lame take.

nickdothutton2• 7 months ago

When the UK handed back HK, the Chinese who are nothing if not wiley, understood that they needed to maintain intelligence, surveillance, and some kind of institutional knowledge of the various organised crime groups, certain individuals with borderline business interests, that sort of thing. They offered the British police officers houses, stipends, and other incentives to stick around and clue-in the incoming crop of officials, domestic intelligence officers, and cutouts/go-betweens. Something of an untold story. Would make a great streaming series.

cedws• 7 months ago

I'm interested in how the takeover happened on the inside. How do you take control of a country with minimal drama when even small corporate takeovers get so messy? I assume there's been a lot of work to root out internal dissent, install aligned individuals, take control of computer systems. Even though the UK handed HK to China, there's got to have been people with strong feelings that created roadblocks along the way.

mandeepj• 7 months ago

there's got to have been people with strong feelings that created roadblocks along the way.

Look into 2019 protests

charlieyu1• 7 months ago

The prosperity in the 80-90s numbed people’ minds

Arn_Thor6• 7 months ago

The takeover was deftly executed, with the kind of patience only a government not concerned with elections can exhibit. While local elections came and went, and the opposition parties valiantly fought in the public sphere, the institutional takeover was slow but steady. That is the only way the pro-China powers in government were able to outlast and suppress the protests in 2019. The government faced unprecedented public opposition, but enough people at all levels of government feared for their livelihoods that neither the bureaucracy nor the police reached a critial mass of sympathizers.

Another crucial factor that's part of the CCP's victory in HK is that China inherited a police force essentially structured as a colonial occupying force. Police staff get benefits that include segregated housing (such as the West Kowoon Disciplined Services Quarters), which maintains morale in the ranks and allows those so inclined to live quite separately from the rest of the populace.

agentifysh• 7 months ago

When I see the Hong Kong story, I can't help but feel worried for South Korea right now. It's like seeing Hong Kong starting all over again. Only saving grace is that the Korean peninsula has far too much of a strategic value to US military but ultimately its worrying that a Korean president will arrest/sue Korean citizens for criticizing China but not America.

bdangubic• 7 months ago

You can F with America all you want. You absolutely cannot F with China.

garlicmachine• 7 months ago

No, you’ve got it wrong. That kind of situation doesn’t exist. They only said that, in areas heavily visited by Chinese tourists, you can’t use loudspeakers to shout racist things at tourists within a certain radius of tourist sites. And why would you think you can’t insult the U.S. or China, or any other country? Even 10 minutes ago, I opened my window and yelled “F* C*,” and nothing happened.

vx_r2• 7 months ago

No, you've got it wrong. The law has not passed just yet. It will happen amid Christmas-eve when everyone is busy celebrating.

tammakiiroha• 7 months ago

I don't think he died for so‑called freedom; to me he is a traitor. When someone in your country uses the banner of liberating freedom to collude with foreign powers and attempts to split the country, do you still consider him some noble martyr who died for freedom?

Arn_Thor6• 7 months ago

And to most Hong Kongers (at least judging by the last local election after the 2019 protests), anone who collaborated with pro-mainland forces to kill one-country-two-systems and stifle the free speech guaranteed under the handover could be considered traitors. You know what would settle Hong Kong's status once and for all? Free and fair elections. Then the people could choose to align with the mainland, or not. But I have a hunch you wouldn't be so keen on that.

Gathering66782• 7 months ago

As a native Chinese, the recent years of US politics definitely made me more unsympathetic for people like Jimmy Lai and the (for lack of better words) campaigns related to them, and, at least from my personal experience, my sentiment (that such people and campaigns are inconsequential at best) is shared amongst a significant portion of Chinese.

BrenBarn• 7 months ago

Can you elaborate on why you say that? What is it about US politics that has influenced your views on Lai and others like him?

jambutters3• 7 months ago

I mean, we went after Assange and Snowden who are in a gray area. Jimmy Lai actually went to top US officials and advocated military assistance to coup the government. No nation would ever go easy on that and it's scary to see all these comments on HN are mindlessly chanting without actually more research

Gathering66782• 7 months ago

I have to emphasise that this is all my personal feeling and experience: I used to think these people and their actions actually mean something, and could lead to a different future. I was uncertain of this future, but willing to try.

Seeing recent US politics makes me reconsider: if this is democracy, or at least what it could very well turn out to be, is it really something I would want in my own country? I know my answer would be no.

Honestly, nowadays, if given the choice of "one person one vote" for the head of state tomorrow, I would strongly oppose such an idea and prefer the status quo.

Given such sentiment, I really don't care about these people and their campaigns anymore.

vx_r2• 7 months ago

I am afraid that the same thing is happening in South Korea right now. This is a cry for help.

"Lawmakers would go on to formally approve the national security law, essentially a foregone conclusion, about three weeks later. The legislation broadly criminalized political dissent and hamstrung the civil liberties that once distinguished Hong Kong from mainland China. A defense of those freedoms—which were already under increasing attack—had come to define Lai's legacy. Lai not only unapologetically advanced democracy and free expression in the region, but he also met with then–Vice President Mike Pence and Secretary of State Mike Pompeo; at trial, Lai testified that he had asked them to voice their support for Hong Kong. He knew the law was coming, and he knew what it meant for him."

The same 'National Security Law' will pass soon. Who decides what's right or wrong? It defeats freedom of speech.

SZJX• 7 months ago

It demands people ask: Do you prefer Hong Kong's past? Or its future?

Such a formulation is either sheer ignorance or worse, full-on deliberate cynicism.

Hong Kong's "past" was a typical colony where the governor was appointed by the British government with no local input whatsoever, and where any assembly of more than 6 people was deemed illegal and brutally suppressed. The type of thing that people like Gandhi (who are apparently heroes in contemporary narratives) fought against throughout their lives.

The British government only started changing the laws and handing locals more political freedom and freedom of speech once they knew that Hong Kong was returning to China no matter what (surprise, surprise).

In all such propaganda you see now, they try to construct a "past" that never existed, and apparently a lot of the young generation who never experienced the old days fell for it. But the older generation would tell them outright that "Hong Kong's past" is far less rosy than what's made out to be.

It's just astonishing when you see the amount of people waving British and American flags on the streets during the protests. What kind of "fight for freedom and independence" is that? Just imagine the reaction to protesters in a US territory or a European region (Catalonia etc.) waving Russian or Chinese flags.

ksec• 7 months ago

But the older generation would tell them outright that "Hong Kong's past" is far less rosy than what's made out to be.

Define older Generation. Because there are plenty of people who lived through 60s to 90s to tell you otherwise.

throw4r3ett• 7 months ago

Those are the people who survived and worked with the colonial government.

Many who protested were killed.

The simple fact is that during the 60s, native Hongkongers were second class citizens.

pointbob• 7 months ago

India had poverty. But India also had democracy. And today India is doing alright. Why did the China need communism to get ahead. There's no moral compass in communism. Just state totality.

Jimmy Lai Is a Martyr for Freedom

Related Stories